Citizen
(in the world)
Vs.
CITIZEN
(of the world)
"Good government is no substitute for self-government." Mahatma Gandhi
Man’s basic need for government stems from his inability to govern himself. According to the beliefs that have come down to us from antiquity, man should be governed by his Divine Creator who wishes to write His laws upon man's minds and upon his hearts. History clearly shows, from Saul to Caesar and modern rulers, that men, in general, have always rejected that spiritual relationship with their Creator. They have often opted for a more secular form of government, finding an imagined stability in laws and statutes written on stone, parchment, and paper, preferring charismatic public personalities of the world and their seducing promises to those of God.
“Nay; but we will have a king over us;” (Samuel 8;19)
In the time of Samuel, the “voice of the people” “rejected” God and begged for a man to be their ruling leader. Today, we have molded with our own hands a government according to our own personal image of perfection, to exceed all others in comprehensive scope, political, and economic totality, and allegiance. But when something goes awash in the proverbial political sandbox, it is always the other guy who is to blame.
It would be convenient for our pride and the comfort of our conscience to blame the assumed or supposed acts of tyranny by government and its bureaucracies totally on their usurpation of the law, but would that be true? Would that be honest? Would that be just? After all, if it is lawful to do with our own what we will, then is it not lawful for government to do with its own what it wills?
“If we will not be ruled by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants.”
In order to understand government, it would obviously be important to understand the origin of man’s relationship to it. There are many ways to approach the subject, and many words that should be examined, in order to comprehend the nature of the union of man and government.
Let us examine a few words that are commonly misused by assumptions. In Webster’s, there are numerous definitions for the word “citizen”. A citizen was “formerly, a native or inhabitant especially a freeman…” The word can be used “loosely, a native, inhabitant or denizen [an inhabitant or occupant] of any place.” But a citizen may also be “a member of a state or nation.”
There is a similar distinction between the words “person” and “individual”, which are found in The Volume Library’s list of “most frequently misused words”. The word “individual” “should not be used in the mere sense of person. The word is correctly used in ‘Changes both in individuals and communities.’” An individual can be considered on the same level as a community, or at least separate from it, while a person is a “member” of a community and, therefore, an intricate part of it.
The maxims, “Every person is a man, but not every man a person,” and, “Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona), of the civil law,” clarifies this distinction.
There are several other distinctions that should be understood when using the word “citizen”.
“The term ‘citizen’ is distinguishable from ‘resident’ or ‘inhabitant.’ One may be a citizen of a state without being an inhabitant, or an inhabitant without being a citizen.” “Word 'resident' has many meanings in law, largely determined by statutory context in which it is used.“ “Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizens. They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them.” Resident alien. “One, not yet a citizen of this country, who has come into the country from another with the intent to abandon his former citizenship and to reside here.”
If residents are “aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country” and they are a resident of a State then their citizenship originates somewhere else other than the State in which they live."A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." who resides in one of the States. "A person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other."
When people speak of “State” are they referring to the corporate “State of ---“ existing under the Authority of the United States, or do they mean one of the National states which, in those early days, adopted the original constitution establishing the corporate United States of America. Almost all governments are corporations in one form or another. The original United States was created by the individual states, but after the Civil War there was a decided change in the relationship of State and Federal government and subsequently between the natural citizens or inhabitants in the states and the Federal Government.
“Often the terms ‘citizen’ and voter are confused. A voter is a person who is allowed by law to take part in the government. A citizen is a member of the nation. A citizen of the United States is a member of the large society which we call the United States of America.”
“In the United States citizenship is defined in the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.’”
“I believe in the United States of America as a government… whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed: a democracy in a republic.”
The United States Federal Government is a political society, existing within the extended jurisdictional authority or dominion of the original Republic or state Republics. The largest portion of the Republics’ original authority rested in the hands of the “individual freeman”, in the realm of his own individual dominion. The authority of the government of the original American Republic was merely “titular,” meaning “in name only.” There was some limited authority that was vested in the original Colonial Republics and State Republics, following the Declaration of Independence. However, none of the authority of those Republics could make laws regulating the natural behavior or the exercise of Inalienable Rights of the freeman without consent. Therefore, the United States Federal Government, at its inception, had no sovereignty, power, or authority to regulate natural rights. It was created originally by the State Republics (not the individual people) through an agreement called the Constitution of the United States, made during a convention of separate states.
“People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative.” “In one sense, the term ‘sovereign’ has for its correlative ‘subject.’ In this sense, the term can receive no application; for it has no object in the [Original] Constitution of the United States. Under that Constitution there are citizens, but no subjects.” “For when the [so called American] revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves sovereign; and in that character hold the absolute right to all their navigable waters, and the soils under them, for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the constitution to the general government.”
The Federal government originally operated not by right, but by the privileges granted it by the States. The people may continue to grant more privileges by their application and participation or their apathy and sloth.
“The government has no inherent sovereignty within the 50 union states...and Congress can exercise no power which the sovereign people have not entrusted to it: all else is excluded.”
"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the [federal] United States... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they [the sovereign people] have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." Supreme Court Justice Field
The original States, finding their limited authority and dominion inadequate, vested some of their rights and duties in a separate governmental organization called the United States.
Today, “in the United States ‘it [citizenship] is a political obligation’ depending not on ownership of land, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government; and it ‘binds the citizen to the observance of all laws’ of his sovereign.” Originally, citizenship did not include the title or sense of subject ,but later in the United States, we see a citizenship binding subjects to the laws of a “sovereign”. A sovereign is “one who exercises supreme power; a supreme ruler; the person having the highest authority in a state, as a king, emperor, queen, etc.; a monarch.” A sovereign makes law.
“Constantly bearing in mind that in entering into society individuals must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest…
The Fourteenth Amendment uses the word “citizens” as a word denoting membership, as opposed to the former use of the word, which denoted merely an inhabitant. This is not to say that there was not citizenship of the United States prior to the amendment, for there surely was. The Fourteenth Amendment was an across-the-board offer of citizenship as a member of the United States Federal Government.
Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, “No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of Constitution. The constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The states are party to it.”
Do you have the same rights as citizens of the United States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, as do natural Citizens of the Republic in which the United States exists? In Twining v. New Jersey, “due process” seems to take on a distinction separate from what many people believe to be the law today.
“The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 US 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment by grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witness is, contained in the Sixth Amendment. West v. Louisiana, 194 US 258. In Maxwell v. Dow, supra, where the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state court of a felony upon information and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the Fourteenth Amendment… the decision rested upon the ground that this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid the States to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, because these rights were not within the meaning of the clause ‘privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.’ …We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States…
“…it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against State action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law… If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.”
It is understandable that the average person might not think that this was the case. But most people also don’t understand that America was a republic prior to the acceptance of the Constitution, and even before the Declaration of Independence. Nor do they realize the true nature of that republic and the motivation of those people who populated it. Many don’t realize that the majority of the people in America were in opposition to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States, at the time of its creation by the individual States. Those States remained “as foreign to each other as Mexico is to Canada”, both before and after the Constitution. Yet, all these historical and legal facts are well documented in history.
“Just as the revolutionary Adams opposed the Constitution in Massachusetts, so did Patrick Henry in Virginia, and the contest in that most important State of all was prolonged and bitter. He who in Stamp Act days had proclaimed that there should be no Virginians or New Yorkers, but only Americans, now declaimed as violently against the preamble of the Constitution because it began, ‘We the people of the United States’ instead of ‘We, the State.’ Like many, he feared a ‘consolidated’ government, and the loss of states rights. Not only Henry but much abler men, such as Mason, Benjamin Harrison, Munroe, R.H. Lee were also opposed and debated…others in what was the most acute discussion carried on anywhere…”
“Owing to the way in which the conventions were held, the great opposition manifested everywhere, and the management required to secure the barest majorities for ratification, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the greater part of the people were opposed to the Constitution.”
“It was not submitted to the people directly, and in those days of generally limited suffrage, even those who voted for delegates to the State conventions were mostly of a propertied class, although the amount of property called for may have been slight.”
Was the Constitution of the United States ever ratified and what is its true source of authority? There has been serious questions raised and continuous arguments made about the lawful passing of certain amendments. The fact is that the Constitution of the United States was never ratified according to the law at the time and its creation was an act of revolution against the law and the will of the people.
“If a constitution expressly provides that it may be amended only in a certain way and another way followed, such and attempted amendment is illegal; but if it is acquiesced in it becomes effective as a peaceful revolution such as took place when the United States Constitution took effect upon the ratification by nine states in spite of the fact that the old Articles of Confederation provided that they should not be amended without unanimous consent of the states.”
“If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants [are] wicked.” (Pr 29:12)
Ignorance and vanity tempered with apathy and avarice are the greatest allies to tyranny. What is the authority that makes the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments the law of the land and the authority in our lives?
Because of constructive and direct waivers by the states, it has become common today to hear the once sovereign states referred to as only “quasi sovereign.”
Citizenship is, “The status of being a citizen” and may include a, “Membership in a political society, implying a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of society.”
Whether a citizen is still a natural inhabitant or has obtained membership in a political society, he has certain rights, although, those rights may differ. The natural inhabitant may be a member of a society or civitas ,but he remains an individual with civil rights within that general body. Those “Civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider sense to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or the administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by laws, freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc.” An individual, who becomes a member or person in a political society, also has civil rights, but the origin of those rights, being political, are rights “pertaining or relating to the policy or administration of government..” So, “as otherwise defined, civil rights are rights appertaining to a person in virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed in civil action. Also a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, and by various acts of Congress made in pursuance thereof.”
The essential difference would seem to be that the former “are not connected with the organization or the administration of government”, while the latter are “subject”.
“It is quite clear then that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the Individual.” “The rights of a citizen under one (state or United States citizenship) may be quite different from those which he has under the other…
If the benefit of the latter citizenship includes the duty of subjection, then the assent must require a voluntary consent, or else such citizenship would be nothing more than involuntary servitude. There are countless ways of demonstrating the consummation of a voluntary consent.
“The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”
The United States Federal Government gives to its citizens, but only after they have bound themselves as eligible members. If all giving was by obligation, there could be no charity. It is clear that the government has no binding contractual obligation to give what is its own to another.
“A thing is said given when it is yielded otherwise than by virtue of right.”
“A gift is said to be pure and simple when no condition or qualification is annexed.” It is obvious that the government never gives a pure and simple gift. It is not only by sworn oaths or pledges of allegiance that we are made subject to government, but by acceptance and performance.
“No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. But if he does not dissent, he will be considered as assenting.”
This being a maxim and fundamental law of nature, all men in possession of their natural perception cannot deny it. Ignorance of conditions and constructions of law can be no excuse.
“It is immaterial whether a man gives his assent by words or by acts and deeds.”
It does not really matter whether we are speaking of a citizenship of the State or the United States; the same voluntary principles still apply. It is basically understood that “Merely being native born within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America does not make such an inhabitant a Citizen of the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment.” If an individual or an inhabitant became a citizen of the United States under the fourteenth amendment, for what ever reason, he would be a member of that same political body, and, therefore, would be considered legally born again into the United States as a person. With a birth certificate, he could apply for the privileges of that membership and incur the binding obligations of that legal association. But, “A person born in the United States has rights under this amendment (the 14th) to remain a citizen unless he voluntarily relinquishes the citizenship.”
“To every man his own house is the safest refuge.”
But why would someone wish to relinquish their US citizenship as a member of such a beneficially affluent political body. Do the cons of such a seemingly harmless relationship with a generally benevolent entity outweigh the pros of such a prosperous civil status so that someone, anyone, would want to completely abstain from its generous benefits? Or, is it the membership's requirements to waive our God-given rights and the denial of universal truths that calls the individual to abandon mere social securities, economic comforts, and apparent gains of entitlements? Are there higher principles?
“Choosing rather to endure ill treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin;” (Heb. 11:25)
The Citizenship by “membership” also includes a “duty of allegiance on the part of the member.” Allegiance to a society or government that supplies the citizen with protection seems like no less than a reasonable exchange of consideration. But before we agree to grant our allegiance, we should examine and understand the full extent of the price we shall be called to pay.
“Man’s primary allegiance is to his vision of truth, And he is under obligation to affirm it.”
The concept of “allegiance” is defined in Black’s as, “The obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one.” This, of course, only refers to a citizen that is a member, as opposed to one that is a mere inhabitant.
As an example, a “Natural Allegiance,” as stated in English law, “is due from all men born within the king’s dominions, immediately upon their birth, which is intrinsic and perpetual, which cannot be divested by any act of their own.” Such acts in principle would include the Declaration of Independence and the so-called “American Revolution”, if America and its freemen, domiciled on their own land, had not already been removed from that particular dominion of the king many years before by the manumitting charters of Charles the I and II.
“The civil law reduces the unwilling freedman to his original slavery; but the laws of the Angloes judge once manumitted as ever after free.”
This Maxim of English law was either forgotten or ignored by George the III, although it was proclaimed by many men of England and Parliament at the time. And it was the usurpation, by George, of the rights of the freeman living in the American republics, which gave lawfulness to the Declaration of Independence. In actuality, it was the King who did the revolting, not America.
“Art thou called [being] a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use [it] rather.” (1Co 7:21)
The principle upon which Natural Allegiance stands, although presented under other names, is the basis of the obedience owed a father by his children.
What is owed society, or the body that represents society (government), may not be allegiance. If, for instance, a person has also become a “surety” for the debts of the society, he may not simply denounce his obligation, depending on the nature of that surety.
“My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, [if] thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger, Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth.” (Pr. 6:1,2)
Before we give our fidelity, it may be wise to ask ourselves: “Of what value is our allegiance to the U.S. Federal Government and what effect will it have on our relationship to God?”
If, “The idea of law has commonly been analyzed as composed of three elements: first, a command of the lawgiver..; second, the obligation imposed thereby on the citizen; third, a sanction threatened in the event of disobedience” then, we can see in this definition of the law that there is an obligation imposed upon the citizen. This obligation is imposed by the granting of allegiance by the citizen to the lawgiver.
“Good men hate to sin through love of virtue; bad men through fear of punishment.”
“Allegiance is, as it were, the essence of the law; it is the bond of faith.” Yet, “…faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).
It should be becoming clearer that the granting of allegiance to the lawgiver is a binding act of faith, whether by proclaimed oath or pledge or silent acceptance or application and it is the essence of the dominion and authority of a lawgiver over the citizen.
“The chiefest part of everything is the beginning.”
Where is the beginning of our binding allegiance? Is it at the swearing of oaths only? By oath alone, we cannot obtain rights and privileges from our lawgiver (sovereign or master) until we had reached an age of reason and competence. If it begins with our acceptance of or application for benefits, then the point of its binding beginning may be remarkably early.
“‘Civil Law,’ ‘Roman Law’ and ‘Roman Civil Law’ are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence.”
The Natural Law and its Creator provide for the Father and Mother as Husband and Wife to have custody and dominion of their children. In Roman law, Caesar’s rights to his empirical authority and dominion over his subjects stemmed from his position as the vicarious pater, the substitute father. In Rome then as in America today, there was a dual system of citizenship.
Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman. He said, ‘Yes.’ - And the chief captain answered. With a great sum I obtained this freedom. And Paul said. But I was free born. (Acts 22)
Tribute is, “A sum of money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or protection of the latter.” And “Excise (tribute), in its origin, is the patrimonial right of emperors and kings.”
The subject of “Patronus” is a vast and interesting subject as a source of understanding. The origins of tithes and taxes and its principles are still quoted in countless cases, involving everything from trusts to postliminy. But it is best discussed in another place. It is only important to mention here because it is the principle and origin upon which a proper and comprehensive subjective that our citizenship is based.
Since a natural father gives the benefit of life to his child when the child is in the womb, so also it is important, in the scheme of the system of things, that the “substitute father” grants benefits to the individual while the child is still in the womb.
“He who is in the womb is considered as born, whenever his benefit is concerned.”
The Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act was “for the promotion, the welfare, and hygiene of maternity and infancy and for other purposes.” It was passed with a vote of 63 to 7 in the Senate, with a vote of 279 to 39 by the House, and was finally signed by the President and became law on Nov. 23, 1921. The act provided, for the current fiscal year (1922), $10,000 for each state accepting the provisions of the act, and additional sum of $1,000,000.
The bill was a direct outgrowth of a nine-year study made by the “Federal Children’s Bureau.” Note that the Bureau was not the “Federal Bureau for Children”, but the “Bureau of the Federal Children”. This act and the acceptance of its benefits by the states created the “United States birth registration area.”
“(2) Birth Registration Document. The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State… to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.
Did the federal government have the right to impose such legislation on the States? In 1923, it was argued by Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, that, “The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.” The complaint went on to state that, “The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power.” “The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act.”
In the final analysis, the Act was an offer from one corporate entity to another, for the purpose of providing an avenue for the individual citizen of America to register as a subject of the State and, therefore, a citizen of the Federal corporate State, the true and actual sovereign agent, called the United States. The federal government would assume the position of Father of the subject citizen according to the law of Parens Patriae.
“And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” Mt. 23:9
This was a clear granting of gifts, gratuities, and benefits, by government to a child while he was still in the womb of his natural mother. All the children who were certified by the signature and seal of a natural parent, or a professional doctor and the representing county and state, were eligible for further federal and state benefits as a child of the state and federal governments.
At one time, a friend tried to obtain a social security number for his nine-year-old son so that he could have the benefit of a deduction from his income tax. He was told that he could not get a number for his son without producing the boy’s Birth Certificate.
Because the boy did not have one (i.e. DOB because he was born at home), they could not grant him the privilege of a Social Security Number. As far as they were concerned, the boy “didn’t exist”, even though he was standing there before them. The boy was not a child of the state because he had not yet been legally born. This process of certifying a natural birth as a legal (or connecting) birth is not unlike being born again.
Certification begins three part process the Romans called novation, including tutor, i.e. benefits, and ends with the manumission of a child from their parents to the their conscripted father, the state, as they contribute as adults upon the altars of the state. Eventually the state become the Patronus of the People, Our Father. This is a threefold process of abdication, through Novation, Tutor, and Korban where the natural fathers or patriarchs of each household bound their sons and daughters under the power of the State.
“And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken..” Ecclesiastes 4:12
Marcus Aurelius made birth registration mandatory in 168 A.D. This brought about another wave of persecutions for Christians who would not participate in this statutory social scheme. They understood why Jesus said to call no man on earth Father and to only pray, e.g. apply, only to our Father who art in heaven.
This certification does not create an everlasting bond of allegiance in itself, but it shows the origins of the process by which a complete and total allegiance and membership is constructed. It is the beginning of the process of legally binding the individual on earth to a political body or governmental structure.
Allegiance is, “‘The tie or ligamen which binds the subject [or citizen] to the king [or government] in return for that protection which the king [or government] affords the subject, [or citizen]’ It consists in ‘a true and faithful obedience of the subject to his sovereign.’”
“It matters not whether a revocation is made in word or deed.”
This process of constructive faith, trust, and allegiance through offers of mutual protection and subjection creates a relationship whereby, “The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes the citizen or subject of another government or sovereign. The alien, while domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.”
“In the delivery of writings (deeds), not what is said but what is done is to be considered.”
“When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what [is] before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou [be] a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they [are] deceitful meat.” (Proverbs 23:1, 3)
There are many different “open and distinct” acts by which we may renounce our allegiance to one government power and bind ourself to another. Some have evidenced this by changing their name in the tradition of Abraham, Peter, and Paul. Others may revoke on paper, feeling that it has been only on paper that they have assented, but, all who change their allegiance must also change in their actions and deeds, not merely in words.
“The words ‘citizen’ and ‘citizenship,’ however, usually include the idea of domicile.”
There is little doubt that the individual has every right to be a natural inhabitant of the land as opposed to being a subject citizen of government, but there are other things and circumstances that make such natural freedom farther from the grasp of the average individual. However, that subject will be dealt with elsewhere.
“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24)
There are two major kinds of societies in history. The first is a general republic where the individual is “free from things public”, where “no law may be made except by the consent of the freeman”. There, the individual is subject to the natural law of the land common to the people. The second has been created out of the law of the land, by private law or contract, whereby the individual can become subject to the will of the community by consent. It must follow that if there are two governments then there are also two types of citizenship.
The first, is granted to an individual by the right of his natural birth and as a natural inhabitant of a free land, subject to the “Law of Nature and Nature's God,” his divine Creator and by the authority of the full “law of the land.” The other citizenship is granted by virtue of a membership as a person in a political society under the authority or dominion of the Constitution and other Amendments and Acts of that political body. It is a membership that is bound, either by words (oral or written oaths) or deeds (including overt or submissive acts) of faith and allegiance, through the application for and/or only the passive acceptance of “bounties, donations, and benefits.”
The former is free to become subject to whoever he chooses, while the latter is already subject to the dominion of that collective society and shall become subject to whoever that society becomes subject.
Although, America is the “land of the free promised to the saints by God”, according to Brendan the Navigator, the United States is occupying most of that land with their subject citizens. What choice would you make in this land of free dominion? After all, “Freedom is the Right to Choose, the Right to create for oneself the alternatives of Choice. Without the possibility of Choice, and the exercise of Choice, a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing.”
“And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the river, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15)
To whom are social security numbers assigned?
Title 42 U.S.C., §405, which provides as follows:
(B)(i) subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (F)… social security account numbers will… be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers…
(I) to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the United States either for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting them to engage in employment in the United States and to other aliens at such time as their status is so changed as to make it lawful for them to engage in such employment;
(II) to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds including any child on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by another person; and
(III) to any other individual when it appears that he could have been but was not assigned an account number…
-
to children of school age at the time of their first enrollment in school.
If you are applying for or accepting benefits, you have begun the process of binding yourself to your provider and benefactor. If he, the benefactor, collects the funds to pay for your desires by force, in your name, you become a partaker of his sins.
American public school advocates, “imported three major ideas from Prussia. The first was that the purpose of state schooling was not intellectual training but the conditioning of children ‘to obedience, subordination, and collective life.’… Second, whole ideas were broken into fragmented ‘subjects’ and school days were divided into fixed periods ‘so that self-motivation to learn would be muted by ceaseless interruptions.’ Third, the state was posited as the true parent of the children.”
The same principles, plots, and pandoric “social control,” which created in the minds of children a reverence to political forefathers of a given nation, are now turned to a more global union of man under the elite fathers of a planet. These usurping fathers are devoid of the character of the Father in Heaven who created this planet. Now, “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well -- by creating the international child of the future.”
“For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,” (Philippians 3:20)
Like Abraham, we should make our applications to the LORD of lords. We should not enter into contracts of servitude to false gods and serve men who are not gods. If we live like Abraham, by faith, we will be able to obey God rather than man.
“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” (Romans 8:15)
Why were the early Christians persecuted? Did they enter into contracts with Rome that would put them farther under the authority of Rome? We know that the apostate Jewish authority did.
“But they cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.” (John 19:15)
“Give obedience where ‘tis truly owed.” Shakespeare.
“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15:19)
The Greek word for “world” here means “constitutional order” or “arrangement”.
Should we go under authority and power of the “world” of men as some would have you believe? There are a half a dozen Greek words translated into the word “power” in the Bible and even more definitions for the word “power” in the English dictionary.
Paul told us, in Romans 13, that we should remain subject to the higher liberty not go under the authority of others. The word from which power was translated is exousia, and is translated liberty elsewhere in the Bible. It is the strongest word in the Greek language for liberty and is defined as the “power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases”.
What Paul really said was, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher liberty. For there is no liberty but of God: the liberty that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the liberty, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” (Romans 13:1, 2).
This makes so much more sense considering that God has sought to liberate mankind from rulers and has warned us over and over to not make covenants, eat at the table of, bow down, or go under the authority of benefactors who rule, who diminish our right to choose, our endowed right to choose given to us by God. Paul certainly did not mean that we should enter into agreements or relationships under ‘penalty of perjury’ that bring us back into bondage to the world or under the power of systems like Babylon, Egypt or Rome.
“All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” (1Co 6:12 )
If we find that we are slaves in a system of bondage that doesn’t prescribe always to the teachings of Christ, should we seek to be free?
“Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called [being] a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use [it] rather. “(1 Co. 7:20, 21)
It can be hard to let go of the benefits of the world. What is the calling of your heart?
Each man and woman must seek the path of his own faith, in the world in which he finds himself, on the earth God made. Like Abraham and the faithful of old, we must wander the desert of mankind and seek the faith and obedience of Christ Jesus.
“Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” (1 Jn 2:15, 16)
“In our dreams, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand… The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk.”
What have we learned? There are at least two types of citizens in America. One is not connected to the administration of government and the other is subject to the administration of government. One is regulated by virtue of privilege and the other is a matter of right. Which citizenship you enjoy is a result of consent. That consent may be presumed as a result of application, acceptance, or acquiescence.
Tribute is a patrimonial right. A patrimonial right is the right of the Father. Tribute is also an excise tax. Fathers and mothers began to release rights to their children by entering into constructive contracts with the state, by activities that create legal bonds with the state. Children take their first step of emancipation from the their natural Fathers, granted by our Father in Heaven, with the novation of birth certification.
The government's right to impose an excise or tribute tax on persons is because the government has presumed the office of Father, as a patron, in this process of novation. The next step in becoming the Vicarious Pater, or Substitute Father, is to supply a tutor or curator. It was upon these precepts of law that the Patronus of Rome and the modern state forged their greatest power over the people. These Benefactors are represented by schools, administrative agencies of welfare, and provision, corporate police, doctors, lawyers, and all such professional persons who provide care for this child of the state.
The corporate state, acting as our substitute father, imposes the ancient rule of Parens Patriae, or “Obey the Father”. With this office of responsibility comes the power to demand greater and greater compliance to its will, exercising greater and greater control.
Where does the government obtain such right and power? From us. What universal law does the state invoke to assure that authority?
“Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.” (Exodus 20:12)
Is it the plan of God that men should establish a corporate State to stand as a Substitute Father?
“And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” Matt. 23:9
We find the word patri in that Greek text where Jesus went on to expound on this command in the 10th verse of Matthew 23: “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.”
He repeated this command in Luke 22:25 “...The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.”
We are to neither make men our father nor are we to be masters of our neighbors and brothers. Why does Jesus give us this command to be unlike the nations? Because he was preaching that a new kingdom was at hand.
“And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;” Luke 22:29
What is the third and final step to total subjection under the Substitute Father, the State?
Footnotes
|
Share this
page 
